The Left has been aggressively hitting the media to put blame for this event on the right. They, the Left, are deriding the symbolism of the right in the last election campaign and the anti-government rhetoric writ large as the prime motivation of the shooter, despite the facts, whatever they might actually say.

The above quote, from an anonymous top Dem operative, is pushing for the Administration to squarely blame the right with this. Make it their bag to hold. Don’t let a crisis go to waste. Now, one might be somewhat concerned at the opportunist exploitation of such a tragedy, I however, am not. Why? Because they’ve been planning something like this for some time now.

Ah, but why stop there? The Dems were destroyed this political season because the people were informed. It was not uncommon for constituents questioning their representatives, especially in townhall events centered on healthcare reform, to know more about the legislation at hand then their rep did. There has been a resurgence in public awareness of political issues, replacing an apathy that had settled over the masses. But no, the Left can’t have that, now can they. Thus we get the first effort to not let the Tucson crisis go to waste.

May I present, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), “My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as [Monday, 10 Jan 2010].” The Congresswomen intends to target, pardon the pun, high capacity clips and stockpiling ammunition.

Another anti-gun supporter, Representative Mike Quigley (D-IL), told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.

But it doesn’t stop there. Why go after the 2nd Amendment when it was the 1st Amendment that took away your power. Thus, entering stage left, we have Representative Robert Brady (D-PA), who intends to introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress. “You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,” Mr. Brady told Politico, and this bill would make it a crime to do so to a member of Congress or federal employee, as well.

Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX) is joining Brady. “The level of discourse is out of control,” Hinojosa said. “Yes, I would certainly sit down with him and look at the wording and see how we could strengthen it. There’s a need to tone down the rhetoric that occurred here these last few years. In my opinion, I would support legislation, yes, especially since it has been directed at me and my party.” I just thought I’d finish the sentence accurately. Of course, why reinvent the wheel when you can throw in historical censorship. Representative Jim Cyburn (D-SC) wants to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.

This has been the main “target” of the Left’s anti-free speech effort, Sarah Palin’s “Take Back the 20” which identified potential Congressional seats because it put a crosshair over Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), who narrowly won reelection last November. A Palin spokesperson derided- rightfully so- the politicization of the crisis, telling USAToday, “We don’t know (the shooter’s) motive. It doesn’t seem like he was motivated by a political ideology. Craziness is not an ideology.” Well, that last bit might be up for debate.

The notion of this is foolish though. The thought that you can’t use a hunting analogy, or “targeting an issue” in discussing politics is, frankly, un-American. We have a right to free speech. Period. But the notion that the rhetoric of violence has been coming from the right is just inaccurate. And anyone who has watched MSNBC knows as much…

Or how about the special one, Cornell’s School of Agriculture’s very own Keith Olberman, who said this about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign season:

“Only solution is for somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out”

Well that leaves little to the imagination.

The crux of the matter is this, the Left is trying to make political hay out this crisis by selling the people a bill of goods; the shooter wasn’t from the right.

Below is a log of “tweets” posted by Caitie Parker, a classmate of Tucson shooter Jared Loughner, beginning around the time of the shooting.

The AP, among many other media outlets, are reporting that his defining conviction was a mistrust of government, and that he was warped into multiple conspiracy theories. He was a Truther, believing the government was behind 9/11, and he believed in the New World Order conspiracy. His YouTube page listed some of his favorite books being Animal Farm, Brave New World, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Peter Pan and Aesop’s Fables.

Hell, Giffords is Jewish, so his Mein Kampf favorite could be the driver for this as much as anything else.

But in light of the current efforts, this is probably the most salient point. Laughner met Rep. Giffords in 2007 at a Congress on Your Corner event in 2007. He asked her, “What is government if words have no meaning?” Apparently, she read the question and had nothing to say, and Laughner was angry that she didn’t have anything to say. Note the date- 2007. Note the event- Congress on Your Corner.

Did anyone know who Sarah Palin was then? When the words Tea Party were mentioned, did anyone refer to the national movement that swept the nation 2 years later?

This guy had issues with her long before Palin or the Tea Party showed up. If someone had to find an accelerating factor to his mental break, and considering his reported leftist leanings, I’d say the rhetoric from DailyKos far more applicable. But I won’t, because I think this was just an instance of a guy who lost control and lashed out. No one but Laughner deserves to be held accountable and punished for this.

There are many layers to this whole thing but many of them boil down to what a bunch of s#%^ bags the Left are.
The web and real world is alive with calls for gun,speech and mind control and the sheep are lining up to eat it up. The flip side is anyone with a brain and functioning memories (2000-09 is all you need) can recall events,ads and commentary that reveals the Lefts hypocrisy. This unfortunately breeds more contempt and anger. I’d like to think the Lefties are not so devious that they realize that and are intentionally hoping for the ball to roll.

I have no doubt that there is a hope on the part of the left that this spins greater rhetoric. As I point out, they’ve been hoping for an event like this so that they can galvanize Obama. Its sick and I frankly don’t think it’ll work, for several reasons.

1. As information continues to come out about this guy and his leftward connections, the left-wing rhetoric will become more desperate, which…

2. As the left-wing becomes more desperate to tie this to the right, the facts and the vitriol will further diminish their legitimacy.

The argument that Obama can capitalize from this is sorely strained if his primary proponents are delegitimized by the event. Besides, the mood in the nation right now is less government, not more, so efforts to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, restrict political speech and advance gun control- especially with a GOP House- are slim.

But your general point about the slime worthiness of the left is without question.

Gorilla, good post and agreed. I too think it’s a deliberate to galvanize. It was an event waiting to happen for them. But as you said, the lack of legitimacy, especially for the party after November’s blowout, undermines. God I hope this backfire big for them. I want to just slap Rutherford.